Rev. Al Sharpton, flanked by National Council of La Raza president Janet Murguia, National Urban League president Marc Morial, and other civil rights leaders after a meeting with President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

WASHINGTON – President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder assured civil rights leaders Monday afternoon that they will aggressively protect minority voters in Texas and other states, in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that ended decades of federal election scrutiny.

“There is a wound in the Voting Rights Act, but it is not dead,” the Rev. Al Sharpton declared after the private White House meeting, a month after the Supreme Court ended decades of federal scrutiny in Texas and eight other states with a history of voter discrimination. “We’ve been assured by the president and the attorney general that they will continue to aggressively fight to protect the right of all Americans to vote.”

State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, joined two dozen other activists for the private meeting at the White House.

He, too, came away optimistic that that administration will do what it can to fill the void created by the Supreme Court.

“If you look at an issue as contentious as the Voting Rights Act, you want an all of the above strategy,” Martinez Fischer, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said outside the West Wing. “You want to have a congressional plan, you want to have an outreach plan, you want to have a litigation plan.”

Last week, Holder announced that the Justice Department – using an obscure element of the Voting Rights Act – would seek a court order putting Texas under special federal oversight for a decade.

Before the Supreme Court’s recent decision in a Shelby County, Ala., case, any change in election rules in Texas required pre-approval from the Justice Department, from polling sites to voter ID laws to maps used for electing members of Congress and the Legislature.

The court struck down Section 4, which included a formula for picking states that deserve extra scrutiny. Congress is unlikely to come up with a new formula anytime soon.

Holder’s move eased a sense of hopelessness among minority advocates, Sharpton told the president, according to others at the meeting.

“There are other tools in the Justice Department’s toolbox to protect the right to vote,” said Marc Morial, head of the National Urban League.

Holder announced his action against Texas at the group’s conference in Philadelphia, using a pending case involving Texas redistricting. Gov. Rick Perry, state Attorney General Greg Abbott and other state leaders, all Republicans, denounced the move as federal overreach and an effort to circumvent the high court.

Morial said that without the “preclearance” mechanism the Supreme Court suspended, civil rights groups and the news media must fill the void by putting a brighter spotlight on state-level voter suppression.

“There is a recognition not just by the president but by all of us that this isn’t going to happen overnight,” said Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza.

Texas has a long history of voting rights violations. MALC and other groups say that record supports Holder’s action. Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, noted that within hours of hte Shelby ruling, Abbott announced implementation of a strict voter ID law delayed two years in court by a Voting Rights Act lawsuit.

One Florida lawmaker, state Rep. Alan Williams, a Tallahassee Democrat, said Gov. Rick Scott’s efforts to “purge” ineligible voters has given a sense of urgency to the fight. So, he said, is the fact that Trayvon Martin – the black teen whose killer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted this month – would have been old enough to vote soon.

“Next year would have been the first year that Trayvon Martin would have had an opportunity to vote,” Williams said. “We want to make sure that everyone has that opportunity.”

WASHINGTON – With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the Voting Rights Act, it now falls to Congress to devise a new formula to pick states that deserve intensified federal scrutiny.

Failing to do so would mean that Texas and other states that, until Tuesday’s ruling, had to seek pre-approval for any change to election maps or procedures won’t face that burden. That would be fine with Texas Sen. John Cornyn.

“I don’t know many states that would likely be willing to volunteer to have preclearance requirements,” said Cornyn a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and deputy GOP leader in the Senate. “But I’m willing to have that discussion and hopefully we can come up with a reasonable outcome.”

In 2006, Cornyn was one of 98 senators who voted to extend the Voting Rights Act for 25 years — including the Section 4 coverage formula struck down Tuesday because, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, it relied on 40-year-old election data and discrimination.

Without a new formula, neither Texas nor other states would need federal permission to change election dates, polling sites, voter ID rules or district boundaries. Section 2 of the law does allow for lawsuits challenging such changes as biased, but only after they’re in place.

“Effectively, there would be single standard for the entire country,” Cornyn said, indicating he wouldn’t mind that outcome. “Why can’t we just say that the law applies to every jurisdiction, every state, equally? Why do we need to have a preclearance requirement before a municipal utility district, a city council, a county commissioners court, or a state decides to change the location of polling places or its date for holding elections?”

Still, Cornyn said he’s open to having Congress try to devise a new coverage formula, based on recent minority voting patterns — perhaps in the last two elections.

“I personally would not have any problems with one that reflects the current reality in Texas and other places that are covered,” he said. “…We ought to have a discussion about this.”

But he said, the new status quo would be fine.

“That could be one of the outcomes, that we would just say, well, you know what, instead of discriminating – in my view – against certain states based upon historical practices that no longer exist, let’s just write the same rule that everybody has to comply with,” he said.

The Supreme Court has left it to Congress to determine new standards for which states or local governments would need prior approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws or procedures.

But minority members of Congress lamented Tuesday that it would be difficult to push legislation setting a new bar through a divided Congress.

“It’s hard to imagine this Congress, with the majority we have right now, will be willing to act,” said Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth. “They should be willing to act after what happened in the last election … they need to be able to reach out, but that’s not happening.”

Veasey and Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, spoke at a news conference with House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. Both Texans expressed hope of bipartisan cooperation on the issue but acknowledged afterward it would be difficult to pass anything in the House.

Gallego said the caucuses had a preliminary discussion about how to determine which districts should be required to have preclearance.

“Today’s ruling by the United States Supreme Court is a clear victory for federalism and the states. Texas may now implement the will of the people without being subject to outdated and unnecessary oversight and the overreach of federal power,” Perry said in a statement.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said he is “deeply disappointed” at today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, and called on Congress to quickly rectify the problems cited by the court.

“For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans. Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent,” he said in a statement issued by the White House.

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder called the ruling “a serious setback for voting rights.”

Speaking at the Justice Department, he noted that just last year a federal court invoked the law to block a discriminatory congressional map in Texas. The law has also been used to block South Carolina’s photo ID law.

“Without the Section 4 coverage formula, neither of these discriminatory voting changes would have been subject to review and both could have been implemented immediately,” Holder said.

He vowed that “the Department of Justice will continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights. Let me be very clear: we will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action – using every legal tool that remains available to us – against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling by hindering eligible citizens’ full and free exercise of the franchise.”

And he echoed Obama’s call for Congress to act quickly to create a new formula.

“Existing statutes cannot totally fill the void left by today’s Supreme Court ruling. And I am hopeful that new protections can and will pass in this session of Congress,” he said.

People line up to hear oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Feb. 27 in the Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder voting rights case. A 5-4 majority struck down a key provision today requiring Texas and eight other states with a history of discrimination to seek federal approval for changes in election rules.

WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court has struck down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act that has long put Texas and most of the South under federal scrutiny.

The historic 5-4 ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, finds that the current formula for picking which states face such hurdles is outdated and unconstitutional. Until Congress devises a new formula that passes muster, these states no longer need to seek Justice Department approval ahead of time for new voter ID rules, congressional maps and other changes.

The court emphasized that other elements of the landmark law, enacted in 1965 and amended and reauthorized several times since, remain in place. Allegations of bias can still be brought to court after the fact under Section 2, another provision. But Section 5 — the one that requires so-called “preclearance” — cannot be invoked unless and until a new formula is adopted. (Section 4, which deals with the formula, was the one struck down by the court today.)

“Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions,” Roberts wrote.

(update: In Austin, Texas Attorney Greg Abbott announced that the state’s controversial Voter ID law — challenged by the Justice Department under Section 5 — “will take effect immediately.” And “redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.” More here.

And Gov. Rick Perry called the ruling ” a clear victory for federalism and the states. Texas may now implement the will of the people without being subject to outdated and unnecessary oversight and the overreach of federal power.”

President Barack Obama said he is “deeply disappointed” at the ruling and called on Congress to rectify the problems cited by the court. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to protect voting rights with tools the Supreme Court left intact.)

The ruling is here. The court split along predictable lines. Roberts was joined by fellow conservatives Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and the right-leaning swing justice, Anthony Kennedy.

In recent years, the Justice Department has used preclearance to block a controversial voter ID law in Texas, and maps proposed for use in congressional and legislative elections after the 2010 Census. Appeals in both cases are pending at the Supreme Court; the impact of today’s ruling on those cases was not immediately clear.

update: The Court released four rulings today. No affirmative action. No Voting Rights Act. We do have a ruling in a Texas case today, but it’s not one of the blockbusters. This case involves water rights, the Tarrant Regional Water District, the Red River, and Oklahoma. Opinion here.

WASHINGTON — The suspense is building. The U.S. Supreme Court will issue some opinions in a few minutes, and with less than two weeks remaining in its term, there are two blockbusters with major Texas implications still pending.

One case involves affirmative action in college admissions. Abigail Fisher, a white woman from Sugar Land, sued the University of Texas at Austin after her rejection in 2008.

The other case, brought by Shelby County, Ala., challenges a part of the federal Voting Rights Act that requires Texas, most Southern states, and some other jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to seek U.S. Justice Department approval before making any change to election rules — from moving a polling site across the street to redrawing congressional districts.

If rulings don’t come down this morning, the next day when the Court announces opinions is Monday. The following Monday, June 24, is the final day of the term but the Court likely will add a day next week and the following week to clear its docket for the summer.

People lined up for hours at the Supreme Court for oral arguments in the Shelby County, Ala., voting rights case.

WASHINGTON –The fate of a landmark civil rights law that has ensured the right to vote for millions of people in Texas and other states is now in the hands of a deeply divided Supreme Court.

An hour of heated oral arguments exposed the court’s ideological chasm, and a 5-4 ruling striking down key parts of the Voting Rights Act seemed plausible. The Shelby County, Ala., case amounts to the most potent assault to date on the law, in particular Section 5, which requires Texas and eight other states to seek federal permission before any changes to election rules.

Parts of seven other states also are covered.

The four liberals on the court were openly hostile to arguments that it’s time to end oversight in jurisdictions long covered by the Voting Rights Act. But the conservatives, and swing Justice Anthony Kennedy, seemed just as skeptical about the justification for treating states differently;

Kennedy repeatedly questioned the apparent use of “reverse engineering” by Congress to devise tests when it first enacted the law in 1965, and when it renewed the law in 2006, to ensure that states in the Deep South were covered while others with similar records were exempt from the most onerous provisions.

Kennedy asked repeatedly about the need for preclearance, rather than allowing the government or injured parties to sue a state over perceived discrimination.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, defending the law on behalf of the Obama administration, argued that after-the-fact lawsuits are too expensive and time consuming, and that the deterrent effect of Section 5 has been critical for decades.

If lawsuits are the only recourse, he said, “You’re never going to get at all these thousands of under the radar changes.”

On the liberal side, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Shelby County has lost more than 240 discrimination cases, making it a particularly bad champion for ending rules that protect minority voters.

“Why would we vote in favor of a county that is the epitome of what cause the passage of this law to begin with?” she demanded, interrupted Shelby County’s lawyer repeatedly.

Justice Stephen Breyer likened the evil of racial discrimination in elections to a plant disease. The cure has worked well enough that the blight – in this case, literacy tests – is not longer visible. But the underlying evil remains, evolving in subtle ways that demand ongoing treatment.

“This is a question of renewing a statute that in fact has worked,” he said.

Conservatives on the court were openly skeptical of the justification for singling out certain states for extra scrutiny.

Justice Samuel Alito suggested repeatedly that “maybe the whole country should be covered.”

Chief Justice John Roberts cited statistics showing that Mississippi has the best rate of black voter turnout, and Massachusetts the worst. He pressed the Obama administration’s chief appeals lawyer to say whether the government is contending that Southerners “are more racist than citizens in the North.”

No, Verrilli replied, arguing that the relevant question isn’t whether certain states have improved their records on voter discrimination after nearly 50 years of federal oversight. Rather, he said, the question the court should wrestle with is whether Congress made a reasonable judgment that ongoing oversight is justified in states with a history of problems — keeping in mind the speed and low cost of the preclearance mechanism compared to lawsuits filed after the fact.

“Congress was not voting on a clean slate” when it reauthorized the law in 2006, Verrilli said.

One of the more stunning moments came when Justice Antonin Scalia called the Voting Rights Act “the perpetuation of racial entitlement” – a comment that shocked some spectators and underscored the gap between minority advocates and those who view the case through a lens of federal infringement on states’ rights.

The political pressure on any senator, even those from the Deep South, would have been too high for them to vote against reauthorizing the law in 2006 or perhaps ever, Scalia argued, given the risk of being seen as taking away minority rights.

“This is not the kind of question you can leave to Congress,” Scalia said.

Afterward, on the courthouse steps, the Rev. Al Sharpton called the comment “the height of insult.”

In court, Verrilli responded to Scalia by urging the justices to defer to Congress as they usually try to do on political issues. “It would be extraordinary to … evaluate the judgment of Congress in light of that sort of motive analysis,” he said.

A ruling is expected when the court’s term ends in June.

State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, D-San Antonio, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus in the Texas House, attended the arguments. Like other minority advocates, he warned of dire consequences without Section 5. The state’s controversial voter ID law would have been put into effect last year, for instance, “leaving 795,000 registered voters in Texas without an acceptable ID.”

He called the argument that the law treats some states more harshly a “red herring.” Gesturing to the U.S. Capitol, he noted that Congress routinely sends more funding to one state than to another for highways or other projects. “Nobody around here thinks states get the same treatment” in all matters, he said.